Yamaha SY85 - sampling and copyright - new thread

[Boombastix]

I decided to start a new tread due to some discussion in the the "Re: Yamaha SY85... Finally got round to using it." tread. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7511824

There are two things to look at when it comes to sample use. 1. Was there a license agreement specifically stating that the licensee (the buyer of the synth) is prohibited to sample off of it (the synth) for resale/redistribution (personal use will always be OK if you own the synth). That is the case with Omnisphere, you cannot even make your own patches and sell them as a sample library (you can sell your own patches to other Omnisphere owners as that is just parameter settings). Eric Pershing founder of Omnisphere (famous for his work programming legacy Roland synths, like the D-50) has been very clear about this when asked in forums as well, cannot sample/rip the raw waves, cannot sample factory patches or your own patches, and sell them as sample libraries. 2. BUT, for all the old drum machines and synthesizers (digital or analog), there were never these license agreements. For that reason when you need to look at copyright law, and it prohibits copying someone else's recording for resale.

Just to be clear, we talk about audio here, not the use of a name, such as the names D-50 or Fairlight. Those names are normally under trademark protection, but unrelated to audio recordings.

Since we have recordings to consider this now excludes all drum machines and synthesizers that do not rely upon a recording (i.e. pure analog, physical modelling, or virtual analog), such as the Roland 808, Moog model D, Nord Lead "1/2" and so on. So in essence a sample based drum machine like the Linn or Roland 909 (cymbals/hihat), Roland 707/727 and newer machines this should fall under copyright law. However we all know that the 909 hi hats are resold all over the place, including PH's own Reason factory library. Unless that sound was licensed from Roland it is technically breaking copyright laws. In the US if you profited more that $1000 from it, (if I remember correctly), it is a criminal offense, and less than that it is a misdemeanor. European law is probably similar as these things normally are fairly harmonized across countries.

Now I do not know if not pursuing a copyright infringement would make the courts rule that the right to claim copyright was abandoned or not. I have not seen case law here and I do not know if there is a general rule for it. So this is a tricky area. My guess anyone selling for profit samples that are clearly identifiable is on thin ice, unless they acquired a license.

Moving on to early romplers/digital synths (Roland D-50, Korg M1, Yamaha SY85, and the like). I believe we enter another muddy area and that is when does a digitally stored single cycle become considered a recording under copyright?
My guess is that probably any single cycle waveform even if it is stored in a digital format is OK to use for a sample library just as a pure analog is, it is just another means to perform a basic oscillator function (Op Amp, a Saw function in C++, a lookup table (single cycle waveform) - different means to generate an oscillator), it is not a sampled recording. Never heard this has been challenged in courts, so one can never ve 100% sure. Courts can be a roll of dice, I know from first hand experience...

I looked the Yamaha SY85 manual, they talk about "waveforms", but I do not have this synth so I cannot say if those waveforms are single cycle oscillators or samples. It sounds like oscillators but there is no strict use of the term waveform, so it might be longer samples, i.e. recordings, thus under copyright, probably the latter for several of them as the synth could technically use multiple technologies to generate its sound.
The Roland D-50 has many very short recordings/samples, but Eric Pershing is very clear that they the D-50 sounds are all under copyright, though it may be his opinion and not a court ruling, so again one cannot be 100% sure.

This issue is getting new attention as Roland has re-released its JV-1080 VST, Korg has the M1 VST, Fairlight CMI VST from Arturia is also a re-release, and so on. No one can claim those are abandoned as they are currently sold.

It wasn't that long ago that PH removed REs from the shop that was obviously ripped from NI Kontakt libraries.

• But then what about Pink Noise, they have refills based on the Roland D-50 and Alesis Quadrasynth. I have doubts those are licensed samples and they have no permission to use the trade marks either.

• Or what about Bitley - since he engaged here I looked at his libraries and website. Does he have a license to sell Fairlight samples and use their trade name? The video about the famous Sararr is obviously telling me has has this famous Fairlight sound in the package he sells, but it does not say anywhere that it is under license from Fairlight (or Arturia if they acquired the rights). In the Bitley sample packs I do recognize some drum sounds from sample based drum machines (Linn), and some files are labelled with Roland and many others trade mark names. Roland does not allow this so here it seems obvious that it is a copyright and trade mark infringement.

• The Jiggery Pokery drum Refill Kings of Kong is based on many drum machines samples. Were all those licensed, no info that I could find?

• JackBoxes from Quadraelctra. Were all those with samples licensed, no info that I could find?

• Digital Sound Factory has their Vintage E-MU sounds refills. Were all those licensed, no info that I could find?

Now this issue is not only related to the above mentioned sample sellers, it is widespread but I use them as examples as they are well know to Reason users for their Refills.
I think we as users should feel that it is a good idea to protect the original creators, even if you can buy rip offs at a low price, because eventually piracy will stop creation of new quality devices and sounds.
But if the sounds were licensed, then why is it not stated? I don't think we users should accept that we do not know if we buy copyright infringing samples or not. Some of these packs are not free "just for fun", but cost $60-$200, a fair amount of money to loose if you do not want to use "stolen" sample material in you music, just as many do not want to download cracked software.

I'll be interested to hear if other has some first hand experience regarding the legal copyright issues as I outlined above. I'll also welcome the sample pack creators perspective on this, specifically the legal side of acquiring a license vs not.

[Boombastix]

I'll be darn there is US case law on this after all, i.e. don't mess with Roland...
"Roland has proceeded to litigation on two occasions against individuals and entities that have infringed on its sound recordings. In Roland Corporation v. Atmel Corporation, United States District Court case no. 96-6455-DT (MCX), Roland Successfully sued a French company, DREAM, and its American parent, Atmel"
Full letter here:
https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/2184

[Loque]

Difficult territory... Extracting samples from a ROM may be different than recording it. Copyrights does not last forever. That 1000$ may be calculated very complicated and not just adding selling prices of a complete product.

Without being an advocate or having permissions I would be careful with reselling.

[chimp_spanner]

I'll be darn there is US case law on this after all, i.e. don't mess with Roland...
"Roland has proceeded to litigation on two occasions against individuals and entities that have infringed on its sound recordings. In Roland Corporation v. Atmel Corporation, United States District Court case no. 96-6455-DT (MCX), Roland Successfully sued a French company, DREAM, and its American parent, Atmel"
Full letter here:
https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/2184

I mean, I kinda understand this? The Sound Canvas is designed to play back MIDI files. By removing the need for customers to buy an external sound module (or rather, removing the need to pay for their OWN soundset within the karaoke machine), they're taking business away from Roland.

Roland (and others) can be kinda heavy handed at times but I think in this case they were justified. You can't sample and repackage sounds from their hardware and put it into soundchips/cards. Was kind of dumb for Dream to think they could tbh.

I think really it's common sense. Making and selling a soundset derived from, or designed as a substitute for, a sound module or a plugin is quite obviously wrong, legally. It's perhaps a little more complicated/grey when no other alternative exists but I'd imagine manufacturers like to keep that shit on lockdown to protect possible future emulations. In real practical terms, if you use a Sound Canvas or Yamaha SY wavetable/sample and you stretch and mangle it and turn it into something new...well it might still be illegal. Or it might be considered substantially transformative. I don't know. I'm sure plenty of people do it either way.

[bitley]

And that's the legal issue, second question: Does anyone really want the SY85 sounds? It was a pretty OK workstation synth for its time but today most people consider the SY77 and the SY99 that preceded it to be much cooler as they actually have two complete updated DX7II synthesizer engines inside. Nobody understood why Yamaha abandoned FM at this time and the SY85 was redesigned to include sampling & possible upgrade cards including a card for FM synthesis and this became the first Motif.

[bitley]

Oh there was a question for me there as well, ok:

1. Again, I discussed this with the founders of the Fairlight CMI including Peter Vogel and they were all thumbs up and very excited about the idea. This happened already back in 2010. The whole idea was a positive thing for Fairlight and PVI (now not active companies any longer sadly afaik) as they wanted more eyes on what they'd done as they were currently developing the iPad and iPhone apps.
2. As for all other samples I recorded and included I contacted all parties involved and there were no problems there either.

And an accusation as well? Not so cool, please gather the correct information please.

Bonus info; during this long journey I've discovered Fairlight CMI waveforms that also were included by Roland already in the 1989 U-20, the 1994 JV-1080 and many many more machines. Furthermore Fairlight CMI has been sampled by E-mu, Ensoniq,... the D-50 has been sampled by Yamaha, Ensoniq, ... the DX7 has been sampled by all companies ever creating something music related... and this is where things kind of also become a true jungle. The Fender Stratocaster is included in each and every machine or software package ever released with sampling or ROM banks. The TR-808 and TR-909 has been sampled and included on the ROM circuits of machines all the way back from when they became popular again around 1990, so they were included in the Korg T series (T1, T2 and T3) and the aforementioned Yamaha SY-85, the Ensoniq EPS 16 Plus had a factory disk with the complete 808 (which I demoed a week ago on my youtube channel youtube.com/bitleytm by the way). As for these particular drum machines they became "staple" sounds that everyone wanted so they are probably included in every sample based software and hardware item ever released after say 1992. I could probably write a book about sample sourcing as I have owned just about every synthesizer and drum machine ever released. If we then look at Reason itself it includes sound libraries from Elab, for instance, a company creating sound libraries ever since the late 80s (under other company names) sampling drum loops from classic records and rebuilding these so they aren't so easy to recognise. I personally know Erik as well as we once both worked at Keyboard City, two of the finest shops in Sweden for synths and samplers that were active from about 1982 to 1999. Sweden is a small country so we all know (about) each other here. Erik is a genius with sampling and editing so nothing wrong there but if you want the roots of the boots info about sampling I know literally everything about the subject. OK and one more thing; there are Fairlight CMI samples even in the Roland D-50 ROM, so there! And there are Casio CZ and Oberheim OBX/OBXa, Prophet 5 and Fender Rhodes samples in the Fairlight CMI library as well so if we loop the loop it's all Orbital again as the loop becomes the loop becomes the loop becomes the loop ecomes the loopb comes the loopbe...

[chimp_spanner]

Yeah my dad has the original Fairlight samples somewhere. Got them a long-ass time ago, but I remember them being super cool about him using them for libraries. I guess they're just that kind of company!

It really is just a case by case thing. I don't think there's a single rule or precedent that says it is or isn't okay. As an example; I remember contacting Toontrack long after Superior Drummer 1 was discontinued to ask if I could use it to program drums in construction kit loop packages (where the stems would be supplied separately but no individual hits). The answer was a resounding "no". Kinda sucked, AND I've heard plenty of sample packs that use those kits - I'd recognise them anywhere. But, that was what I was told so I went with it.

Somewhere I have some correspondence from Roland giving me permission to use their sounds in the same way...but I think because it's in a largely musical context it's okay. If I was to re-sell the sounds as patches they'd probably not be so happy about it.

[bitley]

Yes I guess if the AI development creates a true in depth sample analysis engine (which finds source sounds even if they're processed with filters, LFOs, envelopes or playing in reverse or any other order) where all people of the world can upload their demo tracks and their music from all of their CDs, cassettes, vinyl records, VHS tapes and what not the neural network of interconnecting things will be ridiculously extreme - and after two years of working the machine will come to the conclusion that no multitrack audio recording ever done contains sounds that only exist there. (Because as soon anything is released it will be sampled or borrowed - and this is how it's been since we could press REC as soon as we heard something cool - and this dates back to like more than 60 years). Beatles probably sampled stuff as well, even though the sampler wasn't invented. Recording something to tape is literally sampling as well.

[Boombastix]

Well, copyright law is clear in many/most regards. Just like speed limits, it doesn't matter if some drivers drives 80mph on a 60mph road. If you drive over 60 you break the law. And unless you have insight into the agreements between Roland and the other major manufacturers it does not add any value to the discussion what they have done or not done. What matters is to have a license agreement in place for copyrighted material that is used, if you use copyrighted material. If you have approval to use the Fairlight original samples then that is great, and I suggest you say so on your web site. You can avoid suspicion and questions in the future, and instead use it as a selling feature for a legit library. Like what Air just did for their new DS500 "Air has teamed up with music legends Akai Professional and Alesis Drums"
Same thing with other sources, if Roland gave you permission to the D-50 trade mark, then why not say so. Same for the other trade marks and sample recordings, wouldn't that just make life easier?
You could say something like this (example only):
"In this sample library we have included Roland D-50 samples, the samples and trade mark is used by permission from Roland Corp".
And do the same for Fairlight, Linn etc as needed.

• "Accusation?" I did try to collect info from you. I asked politely a couple of times, but you declined to respond each time. Do you now say you actually have a written permission from Roland to use their trade marks and samples?

• "Does anyone really want the SY85 sounds?" Irrelevant to copyright law - it is about who owns the right to make copies - yes it also including derivative works (e.g. using LFOs filters etc - all derivative works are protected by copyright)

• "The Fender Stratocaster" Irrelevant to copyright law - it is not sound generated from a recording.

• "Casio CZ and Oberheim OBX/OBXa, Prophet 5 and Fender Rhodes" Irrelevant to copyright law - it is not sound generated from a recording. (see the DX7 remark below regarding signature patches)

• "Ensoniq EPS 16 Plus had a factory disk with the complete 808" Same thing, irrelevant to copyright law - it is not sound generated from a recording.

• "Elab" I do not know the history there and why they suddenly disappeared (obviously using copyrighted material if they used "sampling drum loops from classic records"). Zero-G had their B-2-B sample CD around the same time, but AFAIK it was pulled from the marked due to copyright infringement, so those early sample CD were probably a mine field and should not be used as a point of reference for what copyright means.

• "DX7 has been sampled by all companies ever creating something music related... and this is where things kind of also become a true jungle" actually no, if a synth is using recordings (samples in ROM) then it is under copyright, if it uses sound generation not from a recording then it is not under copyright. So, a DX7 is OK to sample from that perspective. Yamaha could of course still try to clam copyright to the final sound output based on a signature patch (questionable how successful that would be and I could not find any case law for this), but if you design your own patch with a DX7 you are essentially generating your own sound just as you would blow into a trumpet - so no copyright issue.

• "it's all Orbital again as the loop becomes the loop becomes the loop becomes the loop" Not at all - it is still derivative work and under copyright.

I am not a copyright novice, nor a full out expert, but I have done my due diligence in the past since I own my own patents in Europe and USA, and been involved in corporate trade mark issues in the past. I also spent a couple of hours last night to see what case law there is related to sampling of synths.

But some examples regarding Roland's actions: PH pulled the Rebirth iPad app in 2017 after a letter from Roland. Roland filed trade mark applications in Germany after Behringer announced 808/303 look alike clones.
Next step for companies is to work with Soundcloud/YouTube/Spotify etc and collect info when there is a match between a sound in a song and a patch in a synth, verify that they used a licensed copy of the synth. I saw some rumor that Spectrasonics is doing it for Omnisphere sounds - not sure if it is true yet though. But they are actively pursuing sampling of Omnisphere aggressively - hence we do not see libraries/packs using Omnisphere sounds.
Finally as a sample library/pack creator, if you use someone else's copyrighted samples in your library without a license, you do not own the copyright to that sample. And if you find your library on some "Pirate Bay" website, you cannot legally do anything about it, since you are not the copyright owner. Another reason to play by the rules.

[bitley]

The core concept of my work is to create original soundscapes much in the same way as Spectrasonics; layered and processed combinations (combinators in fact) that are unique to these libraries. I hear what you say and I will update the web pages with more clear info on how the work is done and how the source instruments are used.

[HeavyViper]

Certainly an interesting topic. I recently sampled an old Tandy keyboard (PK-200) as I quite liked some of the sounds on it. For personal use I'd wager I'm good, but it seems like it'd get hairy if I wanted to, say, make a refill and distribute them for free or otherwise. Even though the company marked on the bottom label has long since been gobbled up in the corporation game! The law does seem pretty cut and dry, but I wonder how much of it comes down to how willing the offended party is to have it enforced.

[bitley]

Tandy?! Can we see a photo of it?

[HeavyViper]

Well, distributed by Tandy down here certainly, going by the label on the back. Can't find much info on it at all.




Not amazing, but it has some nice FM-ish and wavetable-y sounds.

[bitley]

Cool! Looks like it might be a Casio with different logo?

[HeavyViper]

Just remembered I shot a quick vid with the demo song playing, just for giggles:

[ScuzzyEye]

Cool! Looks like it might be a Casio with different logo?

Likely. Tandy had re-badged versions of several Casio keyboards, including the SK-1.

[Marco Raaphorst]

Copyright is weird. The Roland 808 bassdrum is a sinewave with a little pitch modulation. Nothing special. You cannot copyright that sound. Anyone can pitch a oscillator.

[bitley]

Ok pitch a sinewave and let's hear your 808 kick Roland tech was never simple

[Boombastix]

Certainly an interesting topic. I recently sampled an old Tandy keyboard (PK-200) as I quite liked some of the sounds on it. For personal use I'd wager I'm good, but it seems like it'd get hairy if I wanted to, say, make a refill and distribute them for free or otherwise. Even though the company marked on the bottom label has long since been gobbled up in the corporation game! The law does seem pretty cut and dry, but I wonder how much of it comes down to how willing the offended party is to have it enforced.

For personal use, you are good as long as you own the synth (assuming it is sample based).
Legality and morale are two different things, so if you sample it and then sell it. It would be a copyright issue, but then, say you just keep the samples for yourself, it is old equipment that is not commercialized today, so nobody cares. Morale - for me, I wouldn't really care. Even giving a 100 copies would not hurt Casio's business, so I would think I could swallow that from a morale perspective too (this my personal perspective). But charging money for it, nah I would probably stop before I get there.
The intent with copyright is to protect the original work, so the originator can monetize it. If you try to do the same with a D-50, well Roland has been selling D-50 ROM cards for newer synths, D-05 was made, and now D-50 VST on the Rolandcloud, so they are currently monetizing these sounds. Anyone copying the D-50 will of course eat into Rolands ability to monetize their sounds, so for me that is a moral problem (and it is of course copyright infringement - unless you have a license).
Same thing with Korg M1, they have a VST of it. And as a user, I personally feel better to give Korg $25 bucks on Black Friday for the M1 VST with all sound cards (crazy deal it is, if you think about it), than using or buying someones samples I got for free (or bought), if I didn't have the hw. Even though I have Korg hw with the iconic Organ and Piano etc, I would still get the VST at some point since I don't have to hook up hardware all the time.

So, my personal perspective is:
Yeah, sampling obsolete synths that has been out of production a long time that nobody is monetizing and giving it away for free is OK. Just like I might roll a stop sign with my bike when there is nobody around. Yes, it is not what the law says, but what my personal moral compass says since I am not hurting anybody else.
But sampling of a modern sample based synth and selling it for profit, I would not do that, and there will probably be a C&D letter in the mail if I start to widely market/sell those samples. Nobody knows if the copyright owner will react or not, Roland hasn't done much to protect their 909 cymbals, but they have gone after someone selling their R8 drum sounds AFAIK recall.
As a consumer, you also have to make the moral decision, do I buy sounds that I know are stolen, when I can buy the from the original creator? But what if the original creator does not make those samples available, find the old hw, buy someones samples, skip it move on - I guess life is full of moral choices. But at the end of the day intent of copyright and patents is to let the original creator/inventor monetize the creations. Even if some companies are trolling the way they use patents, in most cases it is just to protecting honest hard work.

[Boombastix]

Copyright is weird. The Roland 808 bassdrum is a sinewave with a little pitch modulation. Nothing special. You cannot copyright that sound. Anyone can pitch a oscillator.

The 808 is not a sample, so not protected under copyright. You can sample it and sell it as much as you like.

[Marco Raaphorst]

Ok pitch a sinewave and let's hear your 808 kick Roland tech was never simple

I did a test a while ago using Thor and Malström. Kong can do 808 as well but I didn't use it.

https://melodiefabriek.com/blog/recreat ... rum-sound/